From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:33198 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751337AbeFTAhz (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:37:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:37:36 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Brian Foster , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/24] xfs: remove xfs_map_cow Message-ID: <20180620003736.GE9426@magnolia> References: <20180615130209.1970-1-hch@lst.de> <20180615130209.1970-12-hch@lst.de> <20180618173837.GA40796@bfoster> <20180619053537.GT8128@magnolia> <20180619165303.GB18348@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180619165303.GB18348@lst.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:53:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > A comment would be nice here just so the purpose of the logic is clear > > > at a glance. E.g: > > > > > > /* > > > * COW fork blocks can overlap data fork blocks even if the > > > * blocks aren't shared. COW I/O always takes precedent, so we > > > * must always check for overlap on reflink inodes unless the > > > * mapping is already COW. > > > */ > > > > > > With something like that, this now looks pretty good to me: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster > > > > I concur, it would help to have a comment to remind everyone that we > > sometimes upgrade to a cow write even when it's not strictly required. > > :) > > > > With that comment added in, > > Do you just want to throw it after the series? Or should I or Brian > resend it on top of the series? I just stuck it in the patch and had it follow the code in the subsequent reorganizations. Testing is running now... --D